Total Posts:2|Showing Posts:1-2
Jump to topic:

As you will soon discover, this letter does n

JHL1234
Posts: 74
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 12:05:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
As you will soon discover, this letter does not fixate on a single topic or subject. To be perfectly frank and honest, it started out rather focused, but I soon found, as I worked on my primary hypothesis and sought corroboration from other sources, that I have quite a number of different things to say about Wikipedia. Please note that many of the conclusions I'm about to draw are based on cogent and virtually incontrovertible evidence provided by a set of people who have suffered immensely on account of Wikipedia. As our society continues to unravel, more and more people will be grasping for straws, grasping for something to hold onto, grasping for something that promises to give them the sense of security and certainty that they so desperately need. These are the classes of people Wikipedia preys upon. Irrespective of one's feelings on the subject, almost every day, Wikipedia outreaches itself in setting new records for arrogance, deceit, and greed. It's indisputably breathtaking to watch it.

All the deals Wikipedia makes are strictly one-way. Wikipedia gets all the rights, and the other party gets all the obligations. If one could get a Ph.D. in Officialism, Wikipedia would be the first in line to have one. Many people are convinced that none of Wikipedia's "deep insights" has any more depth than a flapjack. I can't comment on that, but I can say that I avouch we should knock down its house of cards. By "house of cards," I'm referring to the fragile, highly unstable, and libidinous framework of lies on which Wikipedia's popularity is based. Without that framework, people everywhere would come to realize that Wikipedia has long been getting away with distorting the facts. I personally urge all of my beautiful and loyal fans to walk with me side-by-side as we march up the steps of justice to right this unconscionable wrong and prove to the world that Wikipedia's sodality of incoherent fanatics loves perpetuating misguided and questionable notions of other ill-bred hoddypeaks' intentions. This is nothing less than a betrayal of the many by the few.

Wikipedia says that it's merely trying to make this world a better place in which to live. If that's the limit of Wikipedia's perception, acumen, and intelligence, then God help it. Even if one is opposed to hubristic Machiavellianism (as I am) then, surely, Wikipedia once wrote a document whose sole purpose was to argue that we should abandon the institutionalized and revered concept of democracy. This document was an endless sequence of intentional distortions, cynical manipulations of language, and outright lies. It served no purpose other to get people thinking about how I don't care to waste my time listening to Wikipedia's effing and blinding about how I lead it to resipiscence, so to speak.

When I hear Wikipedia's advocates parrot the party line"that Wikipedia acts in the name of equality and social justice"I see them not as people but as machines. The appropriate noises are coming out of their larynges, but their brains are not involved as they would be if they were thinking about how the way Wikipedia orders around its devotees causes them to turn inward, reinforcing their own feelings of victimization and loyalty. They typically turn outward only to implement a jackbooted parody of justice called "Wikipedia-ism". Although Wikipedia has no problem with that, thoughtful people are being forced to admit, after years of evading the truth, that I have been right. I was right when I said that the real evil of Wikipedia's fractious pr"cis is that they traffic in our blood, our birthright, and our security. I was right when I said that Wikipedia's attempts to destroy our youths' ability to relax, reflect, study, and meditate have reached gale force. And I was right when I said that it maliciously defames and damagingly misrepresents everyone and everything around it. There's a word for that: libel.

Even Wikipedia's satraps can't deal with the full impact of Wikipedia's rants. That's why they created "Wikipedia-ism," which is just an unrestrained excuse to shank the working class in the back to keep the cash spigots flowing. Wikipedia insists that the kids on the playground are happy to surrender to the school bully. Come on, Wikipedia; show some common sense for a change. Wikipedia will transform intellectual dialogue into ideological indoctrination one day"not necessarily by direct action, but by convincing its patsies to cause pain and injury to those who don't deserve it. Wikipedia screams and cries whenever it's prevented from forcing us to experience the full spectrum of the Wikipedia Rainbow of Revisionism. I contend that if it stopped acting like such a big baby, maybe then it'd see that I wish I knew when it was planning on unleashing its next volley of fickle, randy codices. Alas, I'm no Nostradamus. Nevertheless, some of my predictions have come true in spades. For instance, I predicted ages ago that Wikipedia would cashier anyone who tries to raise officious shysters out of their cultural misery and lead them to the national community as a valuable, united factor, and look what happened. Even scarier, I predicted that Wikipedia would destroy the values, methods, and goals of traditional humanistic study. Although most people doubted that prediction when I made it, they neglected to consider that Wikipedia asserts that education and open-mindedness are some kind of liability. That assertion is not only untrue but a conscious lie. Finally, to those of you who are faithfully helping me put Wikipedia on notice for its attempts to marginalize and eventually even outlaw responsible critics of huffy mythomaniacs, let me extend, as always, my deepest gratitude and my most affectionate regards.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 12:38:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 12:05:55 PM, JHL1234 wrote:
As you will soon discover, this letter does not fixate on a single topic or subject. To be perfectly frank and honest, it started out rather focused, but I soon found, as I worked on my primary hypothesis and sought corroboration from other sources, that I have quite a number of different things to say about Wikipedia. Please note that many of the conclusions I'm about to draw are based on cogent and virtually incontrovertible evidence provided by a set of people who have suffered immensely on account of Wikipedia. As our society continues to unravel, more and more people will be grasping for straws, grasping for something to hold onto, grasping for something that promises to give them the sense of security and certainty that they so desperately need. These are the classes of people Wikipedia preys upon. Irrespective of one's feelings on the subject, almost every day, Wikipedia outreaches itself in setting new records for arrogance, deceit, and greed. It's indisputably breathtaking to watch it.

All the deals Wikipedia makes are strictly one-way. Wikipedia gets all the rights, and the other party gets all the obligations. If one could get a Ph.D. in Officialism, Wikipedia would be the first in line to have one. Many people are convinced that none of Wikipedia's "deep insights" has any more depth than a flapjack. I can't comment on that, but I can say that I avouch we should knock down its house of cards. By "house of cards," I'm referring to the fragile, highly unstable, and libidinous framework of lies on which Wikipedia's popularity is based. Without that framework, people everywhere would come to realize that Wikipedia has long been getting away with distorting the facts. I personally urge all of my beautiful and loyal fans to walk with me side-by-side as we march up the steps of justice to right this unconscionable wrong and prove to the world that Wikipedia's sodality of incoherent fanatics loves perpetuating misguided and questionable notions of other ill-bred hoddypeaks' intentions. This is nothing less than a betrayal of the many by the few.

Wikipedia says that it's merely trying to make this world a better place in which to live. If that's the limit of Wikipedia's perception, acumen, and intelligence, then God help it. Even if one is opposed to hubristic Machiavellianism (as I am) then, surely, Wikipedia once wrote a document whose sole purpose was to argue that we should abandon the institutionalized and revered concept of democracy. This document was an endless sequence of intentional distortions, cynical manipulations of language, and outright lies. It served no purpose other to get people thinking about how I don't care to waste my time listening to Wikipedia's effing and blinding about how I lead it to resipiscence, so to speak.

When I hear Wikipedia's advocates parrot the party line"that Wikipedia acts in the name of equality and social justice"I see them not as people but as machines. The appropriate noises are coming out of their larynges, but their brains are not involved as they would be if they were thinking about how the way Wikipedia orders around its devotees causes them to turn inward, reinforcing their own feelings of victimization and loyalty. They typically turn outward only to implement a jackbooted parody of justice called "Wikipedia-ism". Although Wikipedia has no problem with that, thoughtful people are being forced to admit, after years of evading the truth, that I have been right. I was right when I said that the real evil of Wikipedia's fractious pr"cis is that they traffic in our blood, our birthright, and our security. I was right when I said that Wikipedia's attempts to destroy our youths' ability to relax, reflect, study, and meditate have reached gale force. And I was right when I said that it maliciously defames and damagingly misrepresents everyone and everything around it. There's a word for that: libel.

Even Wikipedia's satraps can't deal with the full impact of Wikipedia's rants. That's why they created "Wikipedia-ism," which is just an unrestrained excuse to shank the working class in the back to keep the cash spigots flowing. Wikipedia insists that the kids on the playground are happy to surrender to the school bully. Come on, Wikipedia; show some common sense for a change. Wikipedia will transform intellectual dialogue into ideological indoctrination one day"not necessarily by direct action, but by convincing its patsies to cause pain and injury to those who don't deserve it. Wikipedia screams and cries whenever it's prevented from forcing us to experience the full spectrum of the Wikipedia Rainbow of Revisionism. I contend that if it stopped acting like such a big baby, maybe then it'd see that I wish I knew when it was planning on unleashing its next volley of fickle, randy codices. Alas, I'm no Nostradamus. Nevertheless, some of my predictions have come true in spades. For instance, I predicted ages ago that Wikipedia would cashier anyone who tries to raise officious shysters out of their cultural misery and lead them to the national community as a valuable, united factor, and look what happened. Even scarier, I predicted that Wikipedia would destroy the values, methods, and goals of traditional humanistic study. Although most people doubted that prediction when I made it, they neglected to consider that Wikipedia asserts that education and open-mindedness are some kind of liability. That assertion is not only untrue but a conscious lie. Finally, to those of you who are faithfully helping me put Wikipedia on notice for its attempts to marginalize and eventually even outlaw responsible critics of huffy mythomaniacs, let me extend, as always, my deepest gratitude and my most affectionate regards.

Rant Generator, am I right?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid